Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I see you have tagged this article with MilHist. Checking the topics the project covers

• Military operations, battles, campaigns, and wars.
• Military personnel, including both leaders and common soldiers, as well as other people involved in military affairs.[Note 3]
• Military units and formations, ranging from small units to national armed forces.
• Military equipment and technology, weapons, armour, and vehicles.
• Military facilities and structures, such as fortifications, bases, test sites, and memorials.
• Military historiography, publications, and historians.
• Types and periods of warfare, the military histories of particular nations and groups, and general military science and doctrine.
• Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose.

it does seem strange to me that you would include an article about a Pacifist in the Project. Seems more appropriate to tag it WikiProject Anti-war, which I have now done. Roundtheworld (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article on Nesta Obermer and though I figured out how to convert past $ to current $, I have zero clue how to convert $ to ₤. Since she is British (okay legally since she married a foreigner in 1925 she lost her British citizenship, but that's a technicality) it seems logical to me that it should show both currencies, but then is there a template that not only shows x $ = x ₤ and currently is y? You know all the technical stuff baffles me and if you can help, that'd be great. If not, no worries. Hope all is wonderful in your world. We survived tropical storm Cristobal with only minimal damage, not true for many of our neighbors. But, today the sun is shining and my roof is drying out. Hopefully the plasterers will be able to start weatherizing tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susun. I'm pleased that both you and the house survived. I have been feeling guilty because a lot of RL things and a few Wiki things have prevented me from delivering the offered help on Patsy Mink. Regarding your query, at Template:Inflation#Tips & tricks#Currency conversion it says

This template is currency agnostic, which means it doesn't convert between different currencies. Thus, if you wanted to know how much DM 1,000.00 marks in 1960 are worth nowadays, entering 2441.35 would provide a result (2069.05) still in marks, not in euros. Consequently, if you need a result in another currency than the one in which the original value is stated, for now you must do the conversion manually.

So the best we can do is pick a conversion rate, say 0.78, calculate manually and insert a bracketed or footnoted "Equivalent to £XX,000 in 2020." Let me know if you would like me to do this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at the template doesn't convert, so yes, please, please, please just do it. No worries, about Mink, we'll get there eventually. We spent 10 days mostly bailing water and moving buckets from leak to leak. Then when the neighbor's tree caused my kitchen wall to crumble (its roots grew up through my plaster and rock ancient wall and then it got wet and expanded, so the wall exploded, or something like that), well, let's just say it wasn't pretty. Even if you can't read the Spanish, the picture speaks volumes. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW: Ah. That does not look good. Sounds like you got off lightly, exploding walls and all.

Pounds inserted. Just check that it is what you wanted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We really were lucky. That photo was taken about 4 blocks from my house. Our street did not flood, so ours was mostly water from above, except for the wall. Whole villages had water up to 4 ft. deep and were evacuated. Worst storm since 2002 and the first time in our 12 years of being here that anything like this happened. Rainy season usually means about an hour of rain every day. This was 24/7 for 10 straight days. But, now we are back to sunshine. Yay! And yes, thank you, that is exactly what I wanted, but had no idea how to do. SusunW (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just archived Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald de Warenne/archive1 because it's obvious I'm going to need to take FAC under some more intense management for a bit, but I'd like to get Reginald into shape ... so can we work together on the talk page to get your concerns dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I shall move the conversation, assuming that you have read and understood - but not necessarily agreed to - the FAC comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

Hi. I am writing to intrioduce myself, and to ask your help with a currrent effort that I am working on. I am currently the Lead Coordinator for WikiProject History. I am trying to get this WikiProject to be somewhat active, in some role that could serve the general Wikipedia community positively.

I would like to ask for your help and for you to perhaps take on a role there. I am trying to provide some support to restore the function of article assessment and article review for WikiProject History as a whole. My best method for doing so is simply to find editors who are experienced at these functions at active Wikiprojects in the field of history, and add their names to the working groups at WP:History; that way, I can help visitors to our WikiProject history with finding an experienced editor who can help them with these processes.

Please note, my overall long-term goal is not to reinvent the wheel; ie, I do not plan to try to make this WikiProject into the dominant WikiProject for all history articles. There is a simple reason for this; the primary support by WikiProjects for editing history articles at Wikipedia is currently provided by a large number of highly-active WikiProjects, each of which covers a specific topic or sub-topic within the overall area of history as a whole. In the aggregate, these existing active WikiProjects are all highly effective, and together they suffice to fully cover the whole field of history.

So therefore, my goal with WP:History is to serve as an information resource and clearinghouse of sorts, to help new or inexperienced editors to find helpful information and resources to enable them to get familiar with the topics of history as a whole, and to find their way to information, resources, active historical WikiProjects, and experienced editors who can help with promoting active editing in relevant topics.

In my opinion, the most comprehensive and active WikiProject for historical topics is WP:Milhist. this is because by its very nature, military history intrisically includes all eras, all societies, all cultural levels, and all groupings within human society and world history as a whole. for this reason, I consider experienced coordinators like yourself at WP:Milhist to be one of the best possible sources for experience and advice, for those seeking to play a greater role in editing this area.

Could you please let me know any thoughts you may have? Would it be okay for me to add you in some role at WP:History? I am open of course to any feedback or comments that you may have. Please feel free to comment. I appreciate your help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sm8900, I am not at all sure what you are proposing the function of WP:History be - this is not an issue nor a request for information, but an observation. For myself, I try to concentrate on content generation, although I frequently get sucked into other things. I may well be willing to take on some role at WP:History, it would depend on the details of what it involved. Perhaps you would care to run something specific past me? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply! well, I can try to put this more simply. I would like to make WikiProject History into a general resource, i.e. for new editors who are generally interested in history topics, and who might like to learn about various ways to edit history in the specific topics they find interesting. so therefore, i am not going to try to make it into a full-sledged wikiproject, since it is currently inactive; rather,. I will use it to help new editors learn more about the history areas of wikipedia in general.

in order to do so, I would like to try to recruit at least a few experienced editors such as yourself, such as in the roles of article review, improvement, etc or else simply just to make their input available to anyone whom might visit this wikiproject. I appreciate it if you might be willing to help there at all. please feel free to let me know. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: The reviewing of articles; article improvement; and the advising of editors on how to develop specific articles, including up to GA or FA, are things which I would be tentatively be prepared to commit to for a renascent History Project. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well that sounds terrific. if you wish, you can add your name on our main page under any working group or task force that you wish. I would suggest you add your name under the working groups for :"article Improvement" and "Article Review." So far, the only member there is Iazyges, whom I am sure you know from WP:Milhist. Also, sometime in the future I hope form a new task force called "Project Team for Editor Advice, Article Review and Assistance." this task force will be a place for any highly-experienced editors like yourself who express a desire to join in order to take an active role in helping others, and helping with our core processes.

my main reason for creating this new task force, is that I want to provide some practical method to give experienced editors some visibility to anyone who visits our project, so it will be clear that we do have active members who have actual experience with some of the usual core functions of a Wikiproject. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, I am possibly being rather slow, but I can't find anywhere to add my name in Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review and I can't find the working group for :"article Improvement" at all. Possibly you could provide Wikilinks? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! just go to the section below, and add your name to the two lists where Iazyges is already listed. I appreciate your help. let me know any other questions. thanks!!

• Section link: Wikipedia:WikiProject_History#Working_Groups

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also, to view the section for Assessment, please click the tab labeled "Assessment," at the top of the page. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, done. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's terrific. thanks! welcome! also, if you want, feel free to post on the talk page to introduce yourself. and of course, feel free to comment on any other topics there. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found two pictures of a rostrum on Commons (here and here). This ram was found on the spot of the Battle of the Aegates and therefore would fit nicely in the article. I don't know the copyright status of the pictures though. Caption should be something like "Rostrum found on the site of the battle, with the names of the quaestors C. Papirius and M. Publicius Malleolus, who built the ship. Malleolus later became consul in 232 BC." Reference is Jonathan Prag, "Bronze rostra from the Egadi Islands off NW Sicily: the Latin inscriptions", in Journal of Roman Archaeology 27 (2014): 33-59. T8612 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612: Do you mean as well as or instead of the current photograph of a ram in the article. I quite like the battle damage visible on the current image. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it's nice to have the pictures of rams from both sides. T8612 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612, do you know if the inscription makes it clear that it was one of those built specifically for this campaign? As opposed to possibly being one captured at Drepana and being operated by the Carthaginians at the Aegates? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Prag says they were likely ships captured at Drepana. Then perhaps you can post a picture in the Battle of Drepana article. T8612 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much. My memory was that Tusa and Royal though that most of the Roman rams were probably Carthaginian prizes. Battle of Drepana is a good thought. In the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gog the Mild,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Good Article and a current Featured Article nominee. It's been reviewed and edited significantly and three editors told me to look for other editors to review it. Here's the featured article page: Laura Harrier FAC. Please help. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you're up for a diversion, the article Battle of Asakai went through GOCER for DYK. I thought it was kindof hilarious, and was wondering how a Milhist vet would appraise it. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reidgreg, . It's very good. Nice piece of prose. I do like the way it is told almost entirely in-universe. As it were. Ready to go straight to GAN IMO. I would love to see it at FAC.

I am currently mentoring Hyborian Age through FAC, which may also amuse you - it reminds me of my misspent youth. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you meant to create EditBattle of Lagos but I don't think it should be in mainspace... Schazjmd (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G6ed it as a wrong namespace duplicate of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Battle of Lagos. Harrias ^talk 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Apologies. That is odd. Thanks for fixing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Battle of Sluys, about the "first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It took a lot of nudging, but I was finally able to get SandyGeorgia over there to review the Hyborian War nomination. Good and bad. She took a wire brush to it. :) In the end, good though—if it gets by her, I'm guessing it'll be meaningful to the FAC coordinators. You probably know more about her than I do, but it looks like she's experienced and well known on Wikipedia. And fantastically busy. Was happy she took the time to review it, even if just in part so far. I'll dig in and respond. Let me know if I'm off on anything and once it looks good, I'll let her know on her talk page. She apparently hates the ping tool. Airborne84 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. I'm just about done making the edits that SandyGeorgia wanted. I still need to go through and check the non-breaking spaces, as well as the WP:MOSNUM and MOS:HASH formatting that she mentioned. If you see anything off, please advise. I did want to ask you though: I updated the Road of Kings references which didn't have an author before. It's hard to see, but the author is the site's top staff member—no real name, it's his username of "Crom". When you pull up his user page, it says "staff member." He's the site admin as well. So, that's how I listed it. It's reference #3 and 4 on the list. But seems a strange way to list an author for a reference on Wikipedia. Is that ok? If not, I can just go with no author since I don't know his real name. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne84, assuming that you mean references no. 17-22 (it took me a while to work that out) then it seems fine. It is not unknown to cite uncredited newspaper or website articles to "staff reporter" or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, sorry for the confusion. My fault. Based on your response, I just updated two of the refs to now begin with author "Road of Kings Staff Member (Crom)". Before they had no author. My rationale was that since I only knew the username and not the real name, I didn't have the authorname. If this looks reasonable, great. If this looks strange, please advise. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through one more time in a few hours and then wait for your go-ahead before advising SandyGeorgia. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I went back through the Hyborian War article. Do you want to look at it again, or should I advise SandyGeorgia to go ahead? Not sure what your schedule is like IRL. Mine gets tight in the next couple of weeks, after which I turn into a pumpkin for a while, unfortunately. Airborne84 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is a bit hectic right at the moment. I meant to look at this today, but it just didn't happen. Could you hold off and I'll try and run through it tomorrow? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. Much appreciated, and standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne84, apologies for the delay. You seem to have responded well to everything. I have made a couple of tweaks, but otherwise I think that it is ready for SG to look at.

I am surprised that as a totally new type of article it is not getting a harder time. I think that reviewers are being quite sensible, helped by the good shape you have it in. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's in large part because of your assistance. Really appreciate the help. Airborne84 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG's comments look fairly harmless. Let me know if you feel I am incorrect in that regarding any of them. You could really do with at least one more comprehensive review - ie, more like Ichthyovenator's than Hurricane Noah's. Possibly BOZ may be persuaded to offer one? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I have a rather uncritical eye when it comes to things like a FAC - I could offer another "moral" support like I did in the first one, if that would help at all? BOZ (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ, not really. You would need to point out some specific areas that you thought could be tweaked/expanded/added or that you thought were particularly good, even if you caveated them with your uncriticalness. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I could help much then, but I will continue to be a "thanks" cheerleader. :) BOZ (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. Based on Ruhrfisch's review, I wrote another paragraph at the end of the History section, and the start of the Setting section for Hyborian War. Can you give them a quick once-over? Would like to get a second check on them.

I pinged Ruhrfisch back to the review, so we'll see what he says. He'll probably have one or two more questions since I wasn't able to address everything he wanted. We'll see. Airborne84 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne84, looks good. I have given a mild tweak. Revert anything you don't like - you did a good job. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch supported the Hyborian War FAC nomination. What's your sense on the next step Gog the Mild? This will be a challenging week for me, but if you think another review is needed I can try shaking some more trees. I don't know what's needed for the FAC coordinators to be happy with a nomination. Airborne84 (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to shake any trees! You have the minimum needed bar a source review and a citation spot check - both of which I will do over the next few days; no great rush to respond to any points I raise on either if it is a busy week. The coordinators may leave the nom for a week or two to see if it attracts any further comments, but unless my work throws up any nasty surprises you can relax. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll note for the source review, that "Grimfinger" is Charles Mosteller, the editor in chief of today's PBM Suspense and Decision magazine and the admin for PlayByMail.net. He also curates the Grimfinger.net website which is cited.

I'll check in during the evenings to answer questions as needed. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for First Punic War, Battle of the Lipari Islands, and Treaty of Lutatius. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 22 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your contribution to the WikiProject Military history related articles. ❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 19:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pravega, that is exceedingly good of you. Thank you very much. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may have seen my message to the editor who archived the Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC. Given I had responded to all of the items you raised and that our discussion was ongoing, I hope you might withdraw your initial oppose recommendation and suggest to Ealdgyth that we continue our discussion within the previous FAC framework.  ~ RLO1729^💬 20:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RLO1729, that ship, as they say, has sailed. I am happy to work with you outside of FAC, and have made a suggestion on your talk page. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer of help is appreciated. Unfortunately, the speed at which you opposed on the basis of items which included a number later shown to be incorrect, and the abrupt termination of our discussion by an editor who seems only to have engaged with the last paragraph of your initial response, is extremely frustrating. I will need time to consider my ongoing involvement.  ~ RLO1729^💬 22:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. If you do decide that you would like my assistance, let me know. In terms of my experience at working with first time FACers, you may wish to consult Girth Summit, SusunW, Shearonink or Airborne84; the last of whom pulled their first FAC nomination after receiving one review - mine - but who doesn't - now - seem to regret it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing that Shearonink could be quite helpful here because of the similarities with Bath School disaster— They might help deal with the hidden list of victims, for example. Willing to help if it’s a go ... pls keep me posted. RLO I just had a glance and it looks intriguing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the votes of confidence Gog the Mild & SandyGeorgia. Your extensive help on getting Bath School disaster to FA was invaluable and muchly appreciated. Sandy, I especially appreciate your standing up for Bath School disaster during the Commenting. For my convenience, I'm linking both the article Cymmer Colliery explosion and the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cymmer Colliery explosion/archive1 here. Atm I am in the middle of an FLC - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death/archive2 for List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death + I have some personal stuff I need to attend to over the next several days. RLO1729 if you like I'd be happy to take a look within the next week or so and give you my thoughts, maybe work with you on the article a bit. Ping me to your user talk if you're interested. If you're not, and want to take a breather for a while that's cool.

As an aside: Frankly?...sometimes the Featured candidate processes around here can kind of suck for the nominators. We all work so hard on these articles and lists, so very hard, and going through a FAC/FLC can be such an excruciating and somewhat bruising undertaking, especially for editors who are going through this all for the first time. Again, RLO1729, if you decide to move forward and submit Cymmer Colliery explosion again for FLC I'm game for working with you on it. Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shearonink, appreciated. As discussed on the article's talk page, I am very happy to work constructively with other editors (and accept the bruises as they come). My concern, and surprise, in this case is that the FAC review process has not been conducted according to standards that might reasonably be expected at this level.   ~ RLO1729^💬 03:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RLO1729, I haven't read through the now-archived discussion, so don't know the background here, but I will say that if Gog has offered to work with you on this, you should take him up on it. I can say from personal experience that he is knowledgeable, supportive and responsive, I would not have got Margaret Macpherson Grant through FAC without his guidance. GirthSummit _(blether) 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second what both Shearonink and Girth Summit have said. Gog is very helpful and his insight is invaluable in navigate through the difficult process of FA. He has a broad perspective and often brings to light things that would not have been evident to you because of your familiarity with the topic. More than that, he isn't one to impose a "my way or the highway" view. In reviewing articles, we often discuss in-depth, and there has never been any issue if our opinions on how something should be presented diverge. I guess what I mean is he is flexible, which is far more helpful than rigid reviewers, who are unable to change their opinions or want to control the outcome. I wish you luck. SusunW (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you all stop, his head will literally explode. Honestly, as if all the FAs, MilHist gongs, and barnstars weren't enough... Harrias ^talk 15:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy today and have only just caught up with this. When, lateish last night, I wrote "you may wish to consult", it didn't occur to me that you might want to post your opinion of the experience here. It should have. Thank you all. Pay no attention to Harrias, they are only jealous. I am actually counting on my head exploding, as it is currently so swollen that there is no other way for me to get it through the door. And I am a firm believer in it not being possible for an editor to have too many barnstars. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RLO1729, sorry to arrive late to the game. I too, have not read the archived discussion, but if Gog the Mild has offered his assistance in this area, I recommend jumping on it. Gog has a wealth of experience and is a tremendous resource. Hope that helps. Airborne84 (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your comments, the issue is not offers of future help, which are appreciated, it is the editorial and admin conduct of the now archived FAC nomination that is the proverbial straw for me. If you have the energy, please read my two comments at the top of this thread, the article's FAC nomination page and talk page, and my comment on the talk page of the admin who closed the FAC nomination in the middle of what I believed to be a constructive, ongoing discussion working with Gog to improve the article.  ~ RLO1729^💬 22:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking a FAC mentor. I saw you listed your name at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC. Can you help me with What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This? it has been archived twice. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 17:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA, sadly I am going to have to decline. As it says against my listing " I don't do most things which could even loosely be described as culture or sport, especially popular". I would almost certainly do more harm than good on an article like yours. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on the Landis Battery. Sometimes you just need told something isn't at the state you thought is was. Saved me embarrassment a botched FAC would have brought (my first ACR attempt, First Battle of Newtonia was only not a total disaster because Kges1901 was willing to work with me on the article instead of quick-opposing).

I no longer think anything I've worked on is near FA-level yet, the three I view as the best all have glaring issues. Landis Battery has prose issues, Newtonia has two weaker sources (O'Flaherty has at best average credentials, same with Wood) and the 5th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) relies heavily on two books by Tucker, which is probably unavoidable. You saved me some embarrassing nominations and lack of preparation. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]